Delegates continued their deliberations in the seventh session of the
Committee on Science and Technology (CST) and the fourth session of the
Committee for the Review of the Implementation of the Convention
(CRIC-4). The Committee of the Whole (COW) convened in the morning to
consider the programme and budget and the regional coordination units (RCU).
CST met in morning and afternoon sessions to address: traditional
knowledge; benchmarks and indicators; early warning systems; land
degradation; and the programme of work. CRIC-4 met in an afternoon
session to consider the Global Mechanism (GM) and review of available
information regarding the financing of Convention implementation.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Riccardo Valentini (Italy) chaired the meeting.

PROGRAMME AND BUDGET:
CCD Executive Secretary Hama Arba Diallo made a presentation on the
programme and budget (ICCD/COP(7)/2), and introduced relevant documents
concerning: programme and budget for the biennium 2006-2007; report on
the performance of the Convention's trust funds in the biennium
2004-2005; report on the performance of the trust fund for supplementary
activities in the biennium 2004-2005 as at 30 June 2005; audited
financial statements for the Convention’s trust funds for the biennium
2002-2003, ended 31 December 2003: report of the United Nations Board of
Auditors; and report on the status of contributions to the Convention's
trust funds in the biennium 2004-2005. Diallo highlighted budget
constraints due to the depreciation of the US dollar, which has limited
the Secretariat’s activities and staffing, and recommended that measures
be taken to guard against further budget erosion. He noted that the
current surplus figure is distorted by substantial unpaid contributions,
which he urged parties to rectify.

SAUDI
ARABIA, on behalf of the Asian Group, supported the proposed programme
and budget, but was concerned about the depletion of funds for CCD
implementation, and expressed hope that the committed resources will
become operational. The EU emphasized improving the efficiency of
financial management and prioritizing the programme of work. ARGENTINA,
on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC), suggested
fair allocation of resources to operational and development activities.
AUSTRALIA expressed concern over new activities in the proposed
programme and budget.

The EU
suggested that funding for the remainder of 2005 should be addressed
first, along with criticism leveled by the auditors’ report, and other
issues such as unpaid contributions and currency fluctuations. VIETNAM
called for funds to implement its national action programme (NAP).
MAURITANIA stated that voluntary funds have enabled civil society
participation from the least developed countries and should be
increased.

Chair
Valentini established a contact group to continue discussion on the
programme and budget.

REGIONAL
COORDINATION UNITS: The Secretariat
introduced the document on the rationale for, modalities for, costs
involved in, feasibility of, possible terms of reference of, and
institutional and collaborative arragnements for RCUs (ICCD/COP/(7)/7).
JAMAICA, on behalf of the G-77/CHINA, urged COP-7 to take a decision on
the issue. JAPAN opposed funding RCUs from the CCD’s budget. GRULAC
highlighted the important role of RCUs in implementing the Convention.
The Asian Group emphasized the RCUs’ role in coordinating regional
efforts and avoiding duplication of work.

Chair
Valentini established a contact group, which met in the afternoon. Two
draft decisions were proposed but no agreement was reached.

The
Secretariat circulated a publication, “The Promotion of Traditional
Knowledge”, which contains the outcomes of two ad hoc panels.
ITALY outlined its proposal on setting up a network of institutions,
bodies and experts on traditional knowledge, and INDIA, CUBA and others
commended the initiative. UNESCO described its work on protecting
traditional knowledge, and KENYA supported the Latin American and
Caribbean proposal to establish a thematic programme network on best
practices and traditional knowledge, and suggested its expansion to
other regions.

BENCHMARKS AND INDICATORS: In
introducing document ICCD/COP(7)/CST/6 on benchmarks and indicators, the
Secretariat requested delegates to bear in mind work already
accomplished, in particular the methodological framework contained in
ICCD/COP(1)/CST/3/Add.1, endorsed by a COP-2 decision. Speakers
emphasized appropriate and broader use of indicators and benchmarks, and
the need for resources and guidelines for indicators implementation in
developing countries. The EU, supported by many, stressed the importance
of impact and socioeconomic indicators.

EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS:
Introducing document ICCD/COP(7)/CST/7 on pilot studies on early warning
systems, the Secretariat noted their importance for understanding the
causes of desertification and drought, and relevance to disaster
reduction strategies. JAPAN presented a pilot study on desertification
assessment and constructing an early warning system in North-East Asia.
TURKEY outlined national activities on early warning of drought. MOROCCO
called for greater reliance on regional systems, and ITALY urged
empowering local stakeholders. The EU noted that in the case of
desertification early warning applies chiefly to assessment and
monitoring.

PROGRAMME OF WORK OF THE CST:
The Secretariat introduced documents ICCD/COP(7)/CST/4 on the report of
the CST Bureau, and ICCD/COP(7)/CST/2 entitled “Priority issue:
Synthesis of reports submitted by the country Parties on case studies
illustrating best practices and research relating to land degradation,
vulnerability and rehabilitation: an integrated approach”.

On
best practices and research, BELARUS, JAPAN, TURKEY, and THAILAND made
detailed presentations on their experiences. In the ensuing discussion,
NORWAY suggested that the reports of case studies be made available
through the CCD website. The EU requested the Secretariat to summarize
lessons learned. ITALY and FRANCE suggested that a summary of the best
practices be reflected in recommendations. The US encouraged
dissemination of lessons learned from all case studies, whether
successful or not.

On the
report of the CST Bureau, an outgoing Bureau member spoke on outcomes of
the intersessional meeting, and highlighted recommendations on ways and
means for improving the functioning, efficiency and effectiveness of the
CST. Regarding the budget, the EU and GERMANY emphasized focusing and
prioritizing the work of the Group of Experts, and the US stressed
increasing resource allocation to the Committee. The G-77/CHINA
recommended that, inter alia, resources be provided to ad hoc
panels on specific issues. FRANCE opposed increasing the number of
inter-sessional meetings. Regarding the appointment of CST national
focal points, many countries highlighted the importance of making use of
existing coordinating bodies and avoiding the proliferation of
institutional structures. The G-77/CHINA, with others, welcomed the
initiative of establishing a UNCCD fellowship programme. Several
speakers commended the consideration of two emerging topics: creation of
a task force on renewable energies; and the impact of crime and conflict
on the environment. TANZANIA, supported by KENYA and BELIZE, suggested
establishing an ad hoc working group on climate and land
degradation.

LAND DEGRADATION ASSESSMENT IN DRYLANDS: The document ICCD/COP(7)/CST/8 containing an interim
report prepared by FAO, was introduced by the Secretariat. FAO presented
the progress of the Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands project.

GLOBAL MECHANISM: Many countries expressed gratitude for
GM support, and described a range of activities it has enabled, while
others urged GM to simplify its procedure for accessing funding.

BURUNDI, SUDAN, and SOMALIA asked for greater attention to land
degradation in areas affected by conflict. FINLAND suggested a
results-based management approach to implementation. PAKISTAN called for
GM assistance in mainstreaming NAPs. ZIMBABWE said the GM should focus
on affected countries not currently benefiting from it, a sentiment
echoed by the CONGO. CHINA described its counter-desertification
efforts, including those by womenï¿½s groups. KENYA noted the need to
support private-public partnerships. MAURITANIA said that although NAPs
had been drawn up, lack of funding has inhibited their implementation.

BELARUS, speaking on behalf of affected countries in Central and Eastern
Europe (CEE), and the CZECH REPUBLIC, on behalf of non-affected
countries in the region, urged the GM to start its work in Annex V
countries. BURKINA FASO said the GM should continue to mobilize
resources effectively.

Chair
El Ghaouth said that the agenda item would be referred to the contact
group on draft decisions.

REVIEW OF
AVAILABLE INFORMATION REGARDING THE FINANCING OF CONVENTION
IMPLEMENTATION: In introducing the
document (ICCD/CRIC(4)/5), the Secretariat noted that a draft Memorandum
of Understaning between the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the
CCD has been submitted to COP-7 for consideration, and that relations
between CCD and GEF have improved. Many speakers requested the GEF to
simplify its procedures and remove conditionality in funding projects.
The RUSSIAN FEDERATION asked the GEF to fund a project in his country
under GEF Operation Programme 15 (Sustainable Land Management). BURUNDI
suggested the GEF work closely with its country focal points in
facilitating project design and implementation. CHINA urged the GEF and
donor countries to provide direct support to NAPs. UKRAINE called for
GEF support for land rehabilitation projects. INDIA expressed concern
over the slow pace in financing land degradation projects, and SENEGAL
called for adequate funds for OP 15 in GEFï¿½s fourth replenishment.

MOZAMBIQUE recommended that OP 15 be made available for implementation
of NAPs. GABON and DJIBOUTI stated that GEF funding is difficult to
access. NICARAGUA stated that although this is true, the GEF has also
made many contributions. URUGUAY urged a global approach, on par with
other conventions. GUINEA requested assistance in addressing land
degradation created by an influx of refugees. Replying to the points
raised, the GEF urged applicant countries to make clear links to NAPs in
their project proposals.

Chair
El Ghaouth said a draft decision on the relationship between the GEF and
CCD will be circulated at a later stage.

CONTACT GROUPS

PROGRAMME AND BUDGET: The
contact group on the programme and budget, chaired by Gerardo Guiza
(Mexico), met in the afternoon. Explaining the programme and budget for
the biennium 2006-2007, the Secretariat said that the increase in the
budget as well as overspending in the current biennium is mainly a
result of currency fluctuations. One regional group questioned this,
saying the issue should be clarified before discussing the new budget.
The group agreed on the agenda items to be considered: payment arrears;
recent auditing; budget of the current biennium; coping with currency
fluctuations; budget for the biennium 2006-2007; and the supplementary
budget.

DRAFT DECISION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE CONVENTION:
The contact group on the draft decision on fostering the Convention
implementation process in Africa under the agenda for the review of the
implementation of the Convention met in the afternoon and into the
evening, and discussed a revised draft decision based on comments made
previously. This draft removed some repetitions in the original text and
made it more clear and straightforward. Some new issues were added, such
as the GEF.

IN THE CORRIDORS

As
delegates emerged from Wednesdayï¿½s budget debates, one could not fail to
miss an expression of frustration on weary faces. A delegate was heard
voicing the concern of his group over the Secretariatï¿½s ï¿½overspending,ï¿½
which the appreciation of the Euro against the US dollar ï¿½could not
convincingly explainï¿½. Many felt that this matter will continue to
overshadow the proceedings in the coming days.

Regional Coordination Units, another issue with budgetary implications,
confirmed its contentious nature. It seems that country positions remain
entrenched: while some urge financing the RCUs from the CCDï¿½s core
budget, others strongly favor using existing regional mechanisms, or
having the Secretariat carry out coordination. As a disgruntled delegate
remarked, ï¿½Itï¿½s a nostalgic throwback to COP-6.ï¿½

This issue of the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin ï¿½
<enb@iisd.org>
is written and edited by
Changbo Bai, Andrey Vavilov,
Ph.D., Peter Wood, Kunbao
Xia, and Sarantuyaa
Zandaryaa, Ph.D. The Digital
Editor is Francis Dejon. The
Editor is Pamela S. Chasek,
Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>
and the Director of IISD
Reporting Services is
Langston James "Kimo" Goree
VI <kimo@iisd.org>.
The Sustaining Donors of the
Bulletin are the
Government of the United
States of America (through
the Department of State
Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental
and Scientific Affairs), the
Government of Canada
(through CIDA), the Swiss
Agency for Environment,
Forests and Landscape (SAEFL),
the United Kingdom (through
the Department for
International Development -
DFID), the Danish Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, the
Government of Germany
(through the German Federal
Ministry of Environment -
BMU, and the German Federal
Ministry of Development
Cooperation - BMZ), the
Netherlands Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, the
European Commission (DG-ENV),
and the Italian Ministry of
Environment. General Support
for the Bulletin
during 2005 is provided by the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP),
the Government of Australia,
the Austrian Federal
Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry, Environment and
Water Management, the
Ministry of Sustainable
Development and the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of
Sweden, the Ministry of
Environment and the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of
Norway, the Ministry of
Environment and the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of
Finland, SWAN International,
the Japanese Ministry of
Environment (through the
Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies -
IGES) and the Japanese
Ministry of Economy, Trade
and Industry (through the
Global Industrial and Social
Progress Research Institute
- GISPRI). Funding for
translation of the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin
into French has been
provided by the
International Organization
of the Francophonie (IOF)
and the French Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. Funding for
the translation of the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
into Spanish has been
provided by the Ministry of
Environment of Spain. The
opinions expressed in the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
are those of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect
the views of IISD or other
donors. Excerpts from the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin may be used in
non-commercial publications
with appropriate academic
citation. For information on
the Bulletin,
including requests to
provide reporting services,
contact the Director of IISD
Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>,
+1-646-536-7556 or 212 East
47th St. #21F, New York, NY
10017, USA. The ENB Team at
CCD COP-7 can be contacted at the Press Room on the first
floor of the Conference area in Gigiri, UNON, or by e-mail
at <changbo@iisd.org>.